THE Times of January 4 contains an article on the Irish poor-law, which seems more than ordinarily deserving of attention. It lays down dogmatically a principle which, if true, ought to be proved not assumed, and it gives a challenge which, although we do not rank ourselves among those to whom it is directly addressed, we nevertheless feel it a point of duty to take up. The principle assumed by the great journal we believe to have been adopted with equal precipitation by the legis. lature, and to have been acted on, contrary to the laws of justice and equity, and to the sore detriment of this country. The defiance with which this editorial dictum is accompanied

would leave us without excuse if we were to remain silent. The article which has suggested these observations, and which, for reasons obvious to the reflecting reader, we copy before offering further comments on any part of it, is as follows:

"Why do not the enemies of the new Irish poor-law tells us fairly and fully what else they think ought to have been done? We do not mean those who merely advocate this or that change, such as subdividing the area of taxation. There are persons, however, and they very numerous, noisy, and prominent, who attack it altogether, and in every part-who ascribe to it all that Ireland is suffering, and will undoubtedly suffer, and who hold it up to the world as a new instance of British misrule. If our readers want a specimen of this sort of talk, they will find one in some remarks about the Bantry union, which we quoted yesterday from an Irish paper. The population of Bantry have been invariably wretched since anything was known of the place. We entertain no doubt they were wretched, indolent, half-starved savages, ages before Julius Cæsar landed on this isle, and that, notwithstanding a gradual improvement upon naked savagery, they have never approached to the standard of the civilized world. They have increased and multiplied with animal nature instead of moral prudence for their rule; and they have received large accessions from other parts. Hardly able to get on from year to year under the most favourable circumstances, in Sep

tember, 1845, they suffered a visitation of heaven in the failure of their potatoes. Next year the calamity returned with double force. The cry was that these poor helpless creatures must be fed. They were fed. They received every species and form of assistance from public and private benevolence. This, however, could not go on for 'ever. Some permanent system was necessary. So, in 1847, the session after the great famine, the Irish poor-law, which Mr. Senior and the economists had previously nipped in the bud, and reduced to a shadow, was clothed with some substance, and made a veritable and efficient measure. Under it the poor people of Bantry have been saved from starby hundreds next week. Nevertheless, vation, and without it they would die off an outcry is raised that the poor-law is starving, desolating, and ruining Bantry.

"The merits of the law depend on some very plain questions. Are the starving to be fed, or not to be fed ? The enemies of the law do not mean that the starving should have been left to their fate. On the contrary, it is very clear that no pains are taken to keep down the number of applications for relief. It is admitted, then, that the starving were to be fed. They could not, however, be fed, unless somebody should feed them. That duty was imposed on the proprietors and occupiers of the soil. Nature, British usage, common sense, and absolute necessity dictated that course. The sufferers were on the soil, and were most of them natives of it. They looked to the soil for employment and relief. It was the failure of the soil to which they owed their distress. Who, then, but the lords and tenants of the soil were so proper to meet its deficiency? As for the particular arrangement between landlord and tenant, it is enough to observe that the analogy of England would have thrown the burden wholly on the tenant, and that reason itself dictates that the rate should be paid by the man in actual possession of the crops. By way of condescension to the weakness of the Irish social state, a portion of the rate was charged directly on the landlords. This, however, is a matter of detail. As a whole, the principle of the law is a principle of nature, and a plain necessity. Once admit that the starving must be fed, and it follows that their

food must be taken from the produce of the soil-that is, from the property of those who own the soil and its fruits.

66

According to the writer we have referred to there are now nine thousand paupers on the books of the Bantry union, of whom two thousand three hundred are in the workhouse, and the remainder recipients of out-door relief. The valuation of the union, he says, is £37,000, which certainly would leave a very small margin to the rate-payers after nine thousand paupers had been fed out of it. The first guardians, however, more Hibernico, fed the poor without making adequate rates, incurred enormous debts, and were superseded. The result is, that the union has not only to provide for the present, but to pay off arrears. But whose fault is this? Not of the law. Indeed, the writer himself censures and criminates the guardians—

"It is difficult,' he says, 'to ascertain the exact amount of debt incurred and due by this union; but when I put it down at £16,000, I am confident, from all I could learn, that I am under the figure. A great deal of this is said to be owing to the management of the old board, who were principally landed proprietors, and, as such, were anxious to save their own pockets, by striking small and insufficient rates.'

"Indeed, it is quite evident that the rates have been absurdly inadequate. According to the return, the total of all the rates in the union, from January 10, 1844, to the beginning of May, 1848, being four years and a quarter, was no more than £10,277-that is, an annual rate of about £2,500 upon an annual value of £37,000. For the last half of that period, British assistance was poured into the union with the most lavish generosity. Nevertheless debt was accumulating-not merely debt to government, but debt to tradesmen and contractors. Decrees have been obtained against the guardians, and doubtless there are now added to the original debt heavy legal expenses.

"But now for the most serious result. The landowner is to be ruined. Nearly all the land in the union, the writer informs us, is owned by half a dozen large proprietors :

With scarce one exception all these proprietors are, to speak in the mildest terms, a "little embarrassed" just now. As an instance, a friendly mortgagee is about to foreclose a mortgage held on one of the estates, by which one-half of the entire property will be brought to the hammer. Another proprietor is said to be non est, and a receiver is about to be placed over his ancestral estate.'

"Such being the general condition of the landowners, a revolution in the proprietary of Ireland is anticipated. This is lamentable enough. We are quite alive to the evils of change, and the benefits as well as the charms of antique associations. Could we so rule it, every

man should occupy his ancestral mansion or cottage, and trace his lineage from a Celt or a Pict, or some such primitive personage. Unfortunately, our wishes are vain, and we cannot indulge in a dream which is dispelled every morning of our existence. In this country we see thousands around us reduced to the hard necessity which mismanagement has brought on so many of the Irish proprietors. Why are myriads selling their estates, their houses, their furniture, their plate, their books, their wardrobes, everything they bave in the world? Why are there sales by auction at all, and why is our last page sometimes filled by their announcements? There is the same cruel necessity, and the same melancholy causes, in England as in Ireland in the case of the bank clerk, who has allowed his wife and family to be rather more magnificent and luxurious than could well be afforded on £150 a-year-as in the case of the Irish proprietor, who has lived up to a nominal rental of £5,000 a-year, when £4,000 a-year was absorbed in the interest of the mortgage. Heavy as the poor rates have fallen in some instances, it is only as the last ounce on the horse's back that they have crushed the landlords. If they must fall, we are ready to grieve for them as we grieve for the three hundred great mercantile houses which have fallen, many of them blamelessly, in different parts of the world, during the last two years. The common error which undermined and overthrew merchant, manufacturer, banker, and landlord, was that they built too much on credit, ran matters too close, and did not leave margin enough for those straits and calamities which Heaven will now and then send. We deplore the catastrophe of those who will not condescend to be prudent and safe, but we cannot prevent it, and certainly, are not answerable for it."

"The merits of the (Irish poor) law depend on some plain questions." So writes the editor, and we are willing to agree with him thus far, that if the law have claims on public estimation asserted on its behalf, a few plain questions may serve to test them. We accept the questions selected for this purpose. They are these: "Are the starving poor to be fed, or not to be fed ?" "Who, then (under the

circumstances described in the article), but the lords and tenants of the soil were so proper to meet its deficiency?" We propose to consider these questions in their order, and then reply to the challenge by which they are preceded: Why do not the enemies of the new Irish poor law tell us fairly and fully what else they think ought to have been done?"

1. "Are the starving to be fed, or not to be fed ?"-a question which, under a very peremptory air, disguises great indistinctness. It may signify is it desirable, is it permissible, is it practicable, is it an obligation, to feed the starving? It does not speak well for the strength of a cause, or the candour of an advocate, to base an argument on the shifting sands of a question which admits of so many interpretations, and which can escape from them all, without assuming a form more ambiguous than that in which the Times has presented it. There is a further advantage attendant on it that the answer, if it be true, must necessarily bear two aspects. Indeed one word "yes"-with this double meaning or direction, might be the apt response to the two parts of the question. On certain conditions, in certain circumstances, through certain agencies (not the starving only, but), they who are "an hungered" should be fed." And there are also conditions and circumstances which, if taken into account, would insist upon an answer directly the reverse. The highest authority and the primeval law has declared labour a condition inseparable from the privilege to "eat bread;" and an inspired apostle, even of Him who has assigned so high a rank to charitable offices, commands that "if any would not work, neither should he eat." This is the divine law, proclaimed at the fall, republished with the Gospel, and for which a witness has been provided in human wisdom and experience. "Fear of want," observes Lord Kames, "is the only effectual motive to industry with the labouring classes." Wisely is it ordered by Providence, that charity should, in every instance, be voluntary, to prevent the idle and profligate from depending on it for support." With such authority from Revelation and experience, we might well give such reply to this leading question of the Times as should disturb the apt sequence of the second; but we are so

desirous to review the argument of which it forms part, in a spirit of candour and forbearance, that we go the utmost lengths which respect for truth permits us, to give the querist an accommodating answer.

We reply, then, to question No. 1that we hold it desirable to feed the hungry-that we regard it a duty so to do to the extent of our means, and consistently with a due respect for other duties. We may feel called upon to share our last morsel with a famishing fellow-creature, while neither for ourselves nor for another should we feel justified in picking our neighbour's pocket, or plundering his granary or garden, under the false plea that crime is excusable when perpetrated under the compulsion of want, or when designed for a charitable purpose.

With this acknowledgment, we proceed to consider the second question"It was the failure of the soil to which the sufferers owed their distress. Who, then, but the lords and tenants of the soil were so proper to meet its deficiency?" We answer, confidently, all parties who had not suffered from that deficiency to which want and distress are ascribable. The Times assumes, that "if the starving must be fed," "their food must be taken from the property of those who own the land and its fruits"--that is to say, from the property of those who have, themselves, been the sorest sufferers in the calamity with which the country has been afflicted. A daring assumption, indeed-an assumption which, were it admissible, would destroy the validity of the hypothesis on which it is professedly dependant. If the starving are not to be fed from the property of those who retain their riches, much more justly may the impoverished claim exemption. It is ability to give which assigns and measures charitable duties. Rich men, be their property landed or funded, houses or merchandise, are bound by a law congenital with their being, to be liberal after their power: poor men, wheresoever their poverty is located, are not called on to be liberal beyond their ability. If it be only on poor men the poor pretend to have a claim, their claim must be clearly proved before it can be admitted. No daring assumption or interrogatory can be of force sufficient to establish it.

But, it may be said, the "dictum" of the Times is more than interrogatory or assumption. There is something like a show or affectation of argument adduced in its behalf. "The

pro

starving," it is affirmed-and however little the statement may add to the sum of human knowledge, it certainly does not transcend our powers of belief" could not be fed unless somebody should feed them." So much we freely admit. The argument proceeds: "That duty was imposed on the prietors and occupiers of the soil.' This, too, we acknowledge to be a painful and flagrant truth; but why were the proprietors and occupiers of the soil thus imposed on? The moralist of the Times answers-"Nature, British usage, common sense, and absolute necessity, dictated that course." These are brave words, were it possible to prove them true. So long as the divine law prescribes, as it does, a very different course, we should feel bound to resist a dictation at variance with the principles of eternal justice. But are they true? Do those potent abstractions dictate the course so flippantly imputed to them? Let us consider.

1. "Nature"-does she command that the duty of giving relief to sufferers shall be imposed exclusively on perhaps the most oppressed portion of the sufferers to be relieved? Whence can the Times have gleaned its knowledge of what nature dictates? Surely not from what nature practises. It is not her wont, in the generous minis. trations over which she presides,

"To make that poorer which was poor before ;"

but, on the contrary, to contrive that all the affinities she sanctions shall be adjusted on principles which render mutual wants and mutual superfluities conducive to the general good of the relations she promotes and cherishes. She ought not to be traduced as dictating to human society what, in her own proper domain, she so strongly discountenances. The laws she recommends to the adoption of man are to be known in the operation of the laws she exercises and enforces. These are the very opposite of the law most unjustly set down to her charge by

the Times.

2. "British usage." How has British usage lent itself to the new Irish poor law? Is it because there has been

a law somewhat similar in force since the days of Queen Elizabeth in England? It is surely somewhat of the most extravagant to say that British usage is to be pleaded as the authority for invading the rights of Irish proprietors and farmers, because it has enforced upon the English their duties. Why is it British usage to charge upon the soil the maintenance of paupers in England ? Because it has been decided legally that the soil is thus chargeable. Every proprietor in England, for three hundred years past, was aware of his liability to such a charge. Such liability entered into every man's calculations-purchaser, testator, heir, husband, father, occupier-all were aware of the liability to poor rates, and each knew that his credits, on account of expectations or possessions, were to be diminished by the drawback of his legal liabilities for the poor. To enforce such liabi lities was a dictate of British usage, because it was conformable to British law, and to a law enacted at a time when the circumstances of British property were favourable for its adoption. To impose such a law on property for three hundred years exempt from it, at a time, too, when that particular species of property was espe cially and utterly incapable of enduring such a burden, was not conformable with "British usage." It is not British usage, as understood in commercial circles throughout the country. Even hard creditors betray some touch of compassion, and refrain from pressing their demands rigorously, when a calamitous visitation is known to have disabled their debtIt was conformable to British usage to send munificent relief to those whom a blight on our agricul tural produce had reduced to extreme destitution. How could British usage dictate an opposite course in the depart ment of legislation? Is it double-souled

ors.

bilingual? And while commanding the people of England individually to help the landed interest in Ireland, because it was distressed, was it whispering to the representatives of the same people in the senate, that they must take advantage of the distresses of that oppressed body, in order to effect their ruin? "But it is only," observes the Times, "as the last ounce on the horse's back, that the poor rates crushed the landlords." Was it Bri

tish usage, we ask, when imposing that ruinous burden, to select the backs least able to bear it? Irish proprietors should be less profuse in their expenditure should have left margin enough for those straits and calamities which Heaven will now and then send." Granted. But it is not of the visitation of Heaven the landlords complain, it is of man's; not of the blight, but of the poor law-a poor law at variance with Heaven's appointments. If extravagance be a crime, let the punishment be according to law, and let it fall only on the convicted: to punish the accused, perhaps calumniated, without a fair trial, is, assuredly, not a "British usage."

3. "Common sense"-Common sense has never yet been at variance with justice. It is uniform, consistent, and, we may add, benevolent. Would common sense exempt the trader, whose granaries groan with the fruits of a foreign soil, from the liabilities which it imposes on those who cultivate our own? Would common sense denounce to the starving that they "must not be fed," whenever the only source from which their wants can be supplied is the wealth of a millionaire, whose hoards are sacred against the claims of charity? Or would it say that such hoards are not to be opened, until impoverished proprietors and occupants of land appear as candidates for the workhouse? Common sense would see that money and land could claim a like 66 prescription" against charity, and were bound by similar obligations to discharge chari

table duties.

4. "Absolute necessity" did not dictate such a course, unless, indeed, the poor law were designed to effect what it has, to a great extent, accomplished the ruin of the Irish proprietary. Absolute necessity, were the purpose of the law honest-" its intents charitable," would dictate the duty of aiding the most oppressed class in society in its endeavour to provide for the liabilities of every class. It would have substituted general contribution for partial confiscation. It would have insisted on respect being paid to the Articles of Union, and on the obligation to make provision for the poor in such a manner as not to infringe upon the rights of one species of property, whilst exonerating another species from its duties. We turn from this distressing theme,

We,

and address ourselves to the challenge, "Why do not the enemies of the new Irish poor law tell us fairly and fully what else they think ought to have been done." In our preceding observations, this challenge has had an answer. The "new Irish" poor-rate is a new income tax, objectionable not only as being unlimited and excessive, but also because it is partial. We would have it more generally distributed, and, unless it can be shown that the monied millionaire has been exonerated by a divine law from the common obligations of charity, we would not enact human laws to release him at the cost of ruin to the possessors of a different species of property. But this is not our only reply. We object to the "new Irish Poor-law " on other grounds; and even were we to adopt its principle, would take exception to its details. Let it be assumed that the moralist of the Times has laid down the true principle on which a poor rate should be imposed. for a moment, endeavour to suppose that the soil should support the poor; that those who possess the land should be the parties whose possessions are to be pillaged for the support of paupers. Granting or supposing this untruth, what have we to object to in the new Irish poor law? We answer, we object to its gross and irritating inequality; and we object, not because the rates are unequal, but because the principle of their imposition is unsound. Poor law commissioners, and their subordinates, have made geographical distinctions the elements of their laws and rules; moral distinctions ought to have guided them. They pretend that by their distribution of the country into electoral divisions, they stimulate exertion, urging farmers and landlords to provide employment for labour. Such a pretence can be realised only where the proprietor has power to ameliorate the condition of the division for which he is pronounced responsible. It is souls, not soils, the poor law imposi tions pretend to stimulate. So long as those who administer the law forget or disregard their duty, putting moral considerations aside, and acting purely on those which are local, we shall regard the professions of poor law advocates as hollow pretexts, which no just man ought to make, and no reflecting person can be expected to believe.

It is an acknowledged maxim as